In
1969, the Cuyahoga River burned. Although it was not the first time
that the River was in need of assistance, it was the 1969 fire that
helped to compel a radical transformation in the way that we interact
with the environment. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio was not called upon to adjudicate the liabilities resulting
from this pivotal event. But in the years preceding the Cuyahoga fire,
the district court was asked to navigate conflicting jurisprudential
approaches to the use of land, air, and water. This chapter explores a
handful of these cases in order to illustrate the nation's struggle over
suspicious conceptions of economic advantage and fairness, flexible
distinctions of private and public property, and evolving ideas of
nature and health. The chapter begins with the 1924 decision in Ambler
Realty Corporation v. Village of Euclid, which remains the most famous
challenge to the constitutionality of zoning regulations. It then turns
to the 1930 decision in Swetland v. Curtiss Airports Corporation, where
the district court addressed the inevitable limitations in property
rights above land following the advancement of powered human flight.
Finally, it considers an opinion released on the eve of the Cuyahoga
River fire, when the court was asked to choose between saving a town and
protecting railroad operations in Biechelle v. Norfolk Western Railway
Company. Although the district court's decisions in these controversies
do not bear the indelible character that we often attribute to law, the
federal district courts for the Northern District of Ohio contributed to
a legal framework in which the fire could occur and, perhaps more
significantly, in which the fire could be perceived as an important
event.